A quick and dirty paraphase no doubt. Folks here aren't composing formal legal argument. The cosntitutional condition is at least "subject to the jurisdiction," and whether or not that includes invaders is an open question.
Maybe that’s why the illegal aliens are literally getting away with murder.
— And I see it says anyone born on American soil is possibly a natural-born American citizen, regardless of their parents’ status. —
A quick and dirty paraphase no doubt. Folks here aren’t composing formal legal argument. The cosntitutional condition is at least “subject to the jurisdiction,” and whether or not that includes invaders is an open question.
I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about. I was talking about a SC ruling passage on who is a citizen quoted to me here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3382753/posts?page=388#388
This is in my response to my request for NBC to be defined, since the claim was it was obvious what it was.
But this SC ruling passage, as I noted in this post, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3382753/posts?page=390#390, doesn’t speak on some different but common possible scenarios. So it isn’t a complete definition, and doesn’t really say anything on many of the less clear cases.
1/12/2016, 9:09:36 PM · 388 of 401
ROCKLOBSTER to Faith Presses On
>>>People who say Cruz isn’t eligible aren’t going by the law but their interpretation of it
You mean like the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision, written by Chief Justice Waite:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Minor v Happersett (1879)
From the Wikipedia page on the SC ruling, which had to do with women’s suffrage. In discussing that, the opinion went over the matter of who was a citizen:
“The opinion (written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite) first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization” and that the Constitution “does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” Under the common law, according to the court, “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”[12] The court observed that some authorities “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.[13]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett